Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe it was the Bf109F-4 that killed Marseille...early Me-109Gs DID have serious engine reliability issues (which killed Marseille among others)
I believe it was the Bf109F-4 that killed Marseille
This sums up your problem. You have no experience, no training but you firmly believe that you know better than real combat pilots, real trained test pilots and real engineers. As for the 6G factor you have fixed on, why I don't know and frankly don't care.
This is long way of saying that the Prop Disk Loads have nothing to do with turning ability. Find me one example from ANY engineering / Aerodynamic manual or book that says it does. Unless of course you know better than all the most learned scholars in this specialised subject.
You have a theory and it might well be an interesting theory, I am not qualified to question it, but you have as far as I can see Nothing to prove that Prop Disk Loads have anything to do with the solution.
.
Even if that was the caseThe Germans certainly allowed full power rating on later FW-190A models, especially against the 8th Air Force bombers, which forced the FW-190A to fight at high altitudes where it needed all the power it could get owing to its peculiar abruptly deteriorating handling above 21-22 000 ft..
--Crystal clear authority arguments. You haven't addressed the fact that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point...
Want to hear how the top WWII French ace Clostermann compared the FW-190A and the Me-109G at the end of his famous book "Le Grand Cirque"?:
The Me-109: "Its principal characteristic in combat was speed."
SPEED. This for an aircraft usually slower, or no better, in top speed than most of what Clostermann flew at the lower altitudes he usually fought (especially vs the Tempest V!)... Doesn't that alone say much? If a slower top speed fighter turned tightly in combat, rather than using the vertical, would its PRINCIPAL characteristic in combat be speed? Floret anyone?
About the FW-190A in combat: "Later in the war they started using the flaps which allowed it to tighten its turns even further"
So a mention of speed for the Me-109, and immediately a mention of turn performance for the FW-190A... Sabre anyone?
I am still waiting for those supposed out-turning Me-109Gs accounts by Gabreski and co... Or low altitude not previously diving multiple 360° sustained-turning Spitfires for that matter!
Gaston
Gaston:
Check out this page about banning of 1.42 ATA on the DB605A (109G2).
Kurfrst - Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (AIR Equipment) - DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G. Berlin 18th June 1942.
As you can see you are incorrect about the Germans never 'de-rating' the 109, and if you read the report you will see that the ban on the use of higher boost was specifically because of engine problems.
Your statement about the Germans not caring about high speed handling and not considering high speed an essential part of fighting, is one of the oddest and most unsubstantiated statements I've seen on these forums.
Germany developed the two fastest late war fighters, the Me262 and Ta152. What would that indicate?
Was probably?He described out-turning and shooting down a tailing P-51D in 2 X 360° turns only, the P-51D almost straining into a stall, but the P-51D was probably applying full power
Even if that was the case
What is peculiar about a single-stage blower running out of steam at 21,000ft? I'd be astounded if my single-stage blower got me that high before wheezing out on me.
Fw190A performance across the majority of BMW801 models began to deteriorate after 18,000ft.
Was probably?
He was tailing a P-51, or the P-51 was tailing him?
At what speed did both fighters enter the turn? If the P-51 was on the stall boundary, it implies (to me) that they must have entered at low speed, I doubt they bled it all off in two turns, so I'm not sure how the full-power application applies here.
Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example. However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.--Crystal clear authority arguments. You haven't addressed the fact that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point..
Want to hear how the top WWII French ace Clostermann compared the FW-190A and the Me-109G at the end of his famous book "Le Grand Cirque"?:
The Me-109: "Its principal characteristic in combat was speed."
SPEED. This for an aircraft usually slower, or no better, in top speed than most of what Clostermann flew at the lower altitudes he usually fought (especially vs the Tempest V!)... Doesn't that alone say much? If a slower top speed fighter turned tightly in combat, rather than using the vertical, would its PRINCIPAL characteristic in combat be speed? Floret anyone?
About the FW-190A in combat: "Later in the war they started using the flaps which allowed it to tighten its turns even further"
So a mention of speed for the Me-109, and immediately a mention of turn performance for the FW-190A... Sabre anyone?
As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109, examples for the Spitfire are common, some listed above and I did give you a link with a number of combat reports which you can check for yourself.I am still waiting for those supposed out-turning Me-109Gs accounts by Gabreski and co... Or low altitude not previously diving multiple 360° sustained-turning Spitfires for that matter!
Gaston
A very bizarre post
even in WW2 the plane could in most cases out turn the pilot, pilots used to black out at maximum turn rate.
Test piots dont test a plane to destruction but a piot fighting for his life will, some pilots bent thir planes wings coming out of a dive.
-Sigh... They quote "a tendency to reverse aileron control near the stall" in left turns... Non-existent in any other FW-190A handling evaluation...
I have studied this phoenomena and reasonbly satisfied that a.) the 190 did indeed exhibit a high G/low speed reversal. I am reasonably comfortable that you can look to two root causes. 1) there was no twist on the outer 20% of the 190 wing, leading to 'iffy' aileron effectiveness in this regime - with an outboard/inboard stall sequence, and 2.) that there was an aeroelastic phoenomena in which the loads on the down wing tip/aileron caused the aileron to twist the wing 'up' at the tip - at the stall point that could cause a reversal and snap to the outside of the circle
This US Navy test also describes a roll rate "about equal to the Corsair", which so incensed the British RAE test establishment that they sent the US Navy an official "rebuttal" document, available online, which in effect argued conclusively that this could not in any way be true, the FW-190A's peak roll rate being around double that of the Corsair...
The necessity to carefully rig the ailerons on the 190 is well documented - and there is no reason to suspect the Bureau Nav to know this... it is entirely possible that the 190A-4 was not properly rigged and entirely probable that the RAF testers well knew this. At any rate the 190 could outroll EVERYBOBY below 350kts.
And please, read ALL 1300 combat reports, including the P-47s, not just the first 10 P-51 reports, to formulate an opinion about turn fighting... I did read most of those Spitfire reports too by the way... And reading all those reports, and much more, is in fact exactly how I changed my mind from a viewpoint identical to yours for decades... It is hard I know, since it took me decades to see the obvious, but you have to give contradicting facts a chance, and you haven't addressed them yet...
Encounter reports are written by the losers Gaston - and there is zero control over the data regarding ingress speed, tactical position, throttle settings, pilot skills etc.
Gaston
P.S. Here is the US Navy report:
http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/page3.jpg
Very strikingly, an earlier US Navy report with the earlier F6F-3 and F4U variants, against a short-nose FW-190A-4, reads identically almost word-for-word, including the absurd roll rate conclusions, which is not very encouraging for its proponents, given the differences in individual variants present...
'absurd' in the context of the thousands of fighters shot down by Fw 190s or the opinions of the naval avaiators that did not have to fight this beast over Europe?
Also, I should emphasize again that the ailerons were a critical aspect of the the FW-190A's slow-speed sustained turn-fighting performance, being described by a FW-190A-8 Western Ace as useable in "catching" the stall after a minimal stick release on stall warning, and thus "riding the turn" on deflected ailerons...
This is time for the 'BS Flag'. describe your boundary conditions and the math to support your BS
He chose for this the longest chord variant of 3 different types of ailerons, and extended that chord further by using field-installed "hinge spacers", creating a gap at the aileron hinge, which improved the low-speed turn performance even further. He also described the broad wood prop as being another significant advantage in low speed sustained turning with the throttle reduced.
Double BS flag.. prove your statements, bring in the DATA to support your conclusions. Prove you have the 'cred' to make the claim.
He heavily emphasized the use of downthrottling, and popping the flaps, well before the merge, and used the FW-190A-8 in turn-fighting exclusively, facing into attacks if the enemy would not turn.
He described out-turning and shooting down a tailing P-51D in 2 X 360° turns only, the P-51D almost straining into a stall, but the P-51D was probably applying full power: It would have been much closer if the P-51D pilot had done what Hanseman did here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
G.
Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example. However to deal with the Fw 190 being outturned the following examples were in the link I did give you.
PO J Stewart 30th July 1942
I stall turned to attack the rear two Fw190, They broke and turned with me but I could easily out turn them and got several bursts at the rear one.
S/Ldr Watkins 19th August 1942
A FW 190 dived down to my height and swept around behind me, I easily turned inside the enemy aircraft and fired a short burst at 45 degree deflection
Flt Lt Manak 5th September 1942
One of them got onto my tail I avoided him by a left hand climbing turn
S/Ldr T Gaze 11th October 1942
Whilst the left one turned, I easily out turned him and fired a long burst.
.
Its also notable that you have not replied to any question with any detail or example.
Now can you support your assertion that EVERY front-line combat experience quoted is completely at odds with the "scientists" and engineers on this point.
Yes I do know what Clostermann said about the Me109. I kept reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300mph for Me109's could turn better than we could at lower airspeeds and you had to watch out for the 30mm in the nose as it wouldn't give you a second chance. The Best Technique was to do a spiral dive and work the speed up to 450 mph, do a stright climb and start all over again.
This was in the link that I gave you and you can check it out for yourself. He most certainly wasn't saying that you are better off turning with an Me109, or that the Me109 was any good at high speed.
As for the turn of the Tempest. The combat report has some meaning
FO Ness 29 September 1944
We then had a turning match lasting four minutes at tree top level, I found that I was able to hold him in the turns in the course of which I was able to fire three short bursts.
So here we have a low altitude sustained turning match with a Fw 190 which after 4 minutes would have been at slow speed. Had he been up against an Me109 the Tempest would almost certainly have lost as per the warning by Clostermann, but against the FW he was able to better it in the turn, in a Tempest a fighter not known for its agility.
Again this was in the link that I gave you and you can check it for yourself.
As for the P47 I have never said that it could turn inside the Me 109, .